On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Fawad Lateef <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, >
Hi, > > It will be good if I can get some hints on this issue. > I think that trying to replace spi_sync with spi_async in mcp251x.c is like trying to replace the engine in a car: it's better to know a bit about engines and cars otherwise the result will be a disaster. That said it's a nice thing to rewrite the driver without the need of deferred work (that is need by spi_sync) but be prepared to have a rather complicated switch-based state machine to handle the communications (I don't see other ways to do it). Think twice about the various kinds of SPI drivers you will have beneath and how much you will gain in performance and lose in term of interrupt latency of the whole system. Especially the mcp2510 case will be quite complicated. So I think you should post your code because it isn't just a matter of "M-X replace-string spi_sync spi_async", otherwise we cannot help. BTW: what motivates your work? -- Christian Pellegrin, see http://www.evolware.org/chri/ "Real Programmers don't play tennis, or any other sport which requires you to change clothes. Mountain climbing is OK, and Real Programmers wear their climbing boots to work in case a mountain should suddenly spring up in the middle of the computer room." _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
